Blackmac wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 5:01 pm
How the fuck is Klitshoff not obstructing there.
Yes... jesus
He's not bound, he runs in front of his player and binds onto the defender...
WTF?
He joined the maul when it was formed from an onside position, his left/arm hand was always bound and he moved to the front of the maul. All totally fine. From this time stamp.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 7:18 pm
by _Os_
For those criticising De Allende, you maybe need to look at oom's analysis. In his words "and that is why they have centres who can tackle locks". Rassnaber probably settled on De Allende/Am, because of their defence.
The Boks won this one, because as I've posted the key to stopping Scotland is the close in defence and preventing their momentum. No use having some fancy play maker at 12 if you've lost the match because he was unable to stop all carrying in his channel, De Allende's carrying is just game plan anyway whoever replaces him will be expected to carry too. I'm not sure Esterhuizen would've been an upgrade on defence, maybe he would've been, if he played instead and wasn't potentially the Boks lose.
Nienaber has already said the 13 order with Am out is Kriel/De Allende/Moodie. If he's not playing 12 he'll be playing 13.
Uncle fester wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 6:42 am
Scotland had to keep ball in hand to try and get scores back but it played into SA hands. I'd expect the ball to spend a lot of time in the air in the SA-Ireland match.
Nowhere near enough pressure on Libbock either. He is about as flakey as they come so how he wasn't a blubbering mess by the end is weird
He's erratic because he tries stuff and doesn't have enough option taking experience at the highest level to know what to leave. He's not erratic because of mental weakness, he's a yster. He'll make an error and then continue as if it hadn't happened. It reminds me a lot of Le Roux when he first appeared in provincial rugby.
If runners are sent on him, he'll enjoy it I expect. It's normal in SA to enjoy tackling and he's the norm not the exception. His tackle on Graham was massive, went for the arm to prevent the offload, didn't allow the tackle to be broken and took him down.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 7:37 pm
by Sandstorm
I look forward to some loosie targeting Libbok, then ending up clutching air as Manie steps him and takes off down the pitch.
He's not bound, he runs in front of his player and binds onto the defender...
WTF?
He joined the maul when it was formed from an onside position, his left/arm hand was always bound and he moved to the front of the maul. All totally fine. From this time stamp.
He's not bound, he runs in front of his player and binds onto the defender...
WTF?
He joined the maul when it was formed from an onside position, his left/arm hand was always bound and he moved to the front of the maul. All totally fine. From this time stamp.
No one in a million years is calling that a maul.
Shithouse Irish ref did.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:29 pm
by Chilli
Who do the cvnts moaning about Money Libbok want to play at 10?
Pollard hadn't recovered enough.
Boeta Depinnar?
Curwin Fucking Bosch?
Morning Steyn?
Derek Hougaard?
He is a dodgy kicker, but Faf or Kolbe can kick for poles
Money is the best optionavailableat 10.
Now get the fuck over yourselves.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:29 pm
by boere wors
i havent watched the full game... somebody remembers how many kicks for goal were missed by manie and by faf?
He's not bound, he runs in front of his player and binds onto the defender...
WTF?
He joined the maul when it was formed from an onside position, his left/arm hand was always bound and he moved to the front of the maul. All totally fine. From this time stamp.
No one in a million years is calling that a maul.
Even if you supposed it was, and even if you supposed he'd bound onto his own player, you'd struggle to keep a straight face claiming he hadn't changed his bind somewhat. And I can't see the bit where he rejoins from behind the hindmost foot (not unless it's on the Scottish side anyway)
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:34 pm
by Sandstorm
boere wors wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:29 pm
i havent watched the full game... somebody remembers how many kicks for goal were missed by manie and by faf?
Manie 3, Faf 1
Scotland could have been 26 behind, not just 15 at the end. A REAL caning.
He's not bound, he runs in front of his player and binds onto the defender...
WTF?
He joined the maul when it was formed from an onside position, his left/arm hand was always bound and he moved to the front of the maul. All totally fine. From this time stamp.
boere wors wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:29 pm
i havent watched the full game... somebody remembers how many kicks for goal were missed by manie and by faf?
Manie 3, Faf 1
Scotland could have been 26 behind, not just 15 at the end. A REAL caning.
thx
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:28 pm
by _Os_
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:33 pm
Even if you supposed it was, and even if you supposed he'd bound onto his own player, you'd struggle to keep a straight face claiming he hadn't changed his bind somewhat. And I can't see the bit where he rejoins from behind the hindmost foot (not unless it's on the Scottish side anyway)
I've posted the video, run it at x0.25 speed. Kitshoff comes from directly behind Du Toit, he doesn't "rejoin" anything and doesn't change his bind.
The lesson here is make the tackle, don't set up a maul on your line against Du Toit/Mostert/Kitshoff with so few defenders Kitshoff can walk the whole way through.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:37 pm
by Tichtheid
Os, nah, Kitshoff joined in front of the ball, he was offside. I'm not going in to it any further because I just see no reason to, it won't change the result.
Similarly Sandstorm, if penalties were missed the games restarts from a completely different place on the pitch, so it's a different game - not so for conversions of course but there were only two of them and I think one was converted - what I'm saying is that you can't add mythical points and assume nothing else changes.
You won, let that be enough.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:51 pm
by _Os_
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:37 pm
Os, nah, Kitshoff joined in front of the ball, he was offside. I'm not going in to it any further because I just see no reason to, it won't change the result.
He joins behind Du Toit when the maul is formed, that is when he's bound. He moves ahead of the ball after he's bound already because there's no Scottish player stopping him, until he makes contact with Schoeman.
Could be a tactic because the carry directly before by Marx there was an attempt to turn it into a maul too. Risks a turnover if it fails..
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:33 pm
Even if you supposed it was, and even if you supposed he'd bound onto his own player, you'd struggle to keep a straight face claiming he hadn't changed his bind somewhat. And I can't see the bit where he rejoins from behind the hindmost foot (not unless it's on the Scottish side anyway)
I've posted the video, run it at x0.25 speed. Kitshoff comes from directly behind Du Toit, he doesn't "rejoin" anything and doesn't change his bind.
The lesson here is make the tackle, don't set up a maul on your line against Du Toit/Mostert/Kitshoff with so few defenders Kitshoff can walk the whole way through.
I'll have whatever you've been smoking.
Kitshoff joins in front of the ball carrier, never binds, runs straight round the front and drags Tuipulotu out of the way.
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:37 pm
Os, nah, Kitshoff joined in front of the ball, he was offside. I'm not going in to it any further because I just see no reason to, it won't change the result.
He joins behind Du Toit when the maul is formed, that is when he's bound. He moves ahead of the ball after he's bound already because there's no Scottish player stopping him, until he makes contact with Schoeman.
Could be a tactic because the carry directly before by Marx there was an attempt to turn it into a maul too. Risks a turnover if it fails..
No he bloody doesn't, he joins in front before 5 binds and is obstructing Schoeman and Jones. Your picture proves nothing. As Tichtheid says, it's not worth arguing about but you are really stretching credibility with your description.
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:33 pm
Even if you supposed it was, and even if you supposed he'd bound onto his own player, you'd struggle to keep a straight face claiming he hadn't changed his bind somewhat. And I can't see the bit where he rejoins from behind the hindmost foot (not unless it's on the Scottish side anyway)
I've posted the video, run it at x0.25 speed. Kitshoff comes from directly behind Du Toit, he doesn't "rejoin" anything and doesn't change his bind.
The lesson here is make the tackle, don't set up a maul on your line against Du Toit/Mostert/Kitshoff with so few defenders Kitshoff can walk the whole way through.
I'll have whatever you've been smoking.
Kitshoff joins in front of the ball carrier, never binds, runs straight round the front and drags Tuipulotu out of the way.
I thought it would be helpful to provide you an example picture of a maul.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:55 pm
by _Os_
I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.
Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:55 pm
I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.
Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:55 pm
I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.
Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
Hilarious. Literally a screencap with a massive red arrow showing the bind.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 12:18 am
by Guy Smiley
Stills are great, unless you’re serious about illustrating the entire sequence of events.
He’s bound initially. He has to stay bound.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 12:29 am
by topofthemoon
_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:55 pm
I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.
Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
You're lacking one crucial element for a maul there - a Scotland player bound in. Tuipulotu is bounced off in his attempted tackle (perfectly clear on the reverse angle) and before he can engage du Toit again, Kitshoff has stepped in front of the ball carrier and continues in that position across the line.
I'd be annoyed if a Scotland try was chalked off for something like that but we needed a decent bit of luck to have a chance of winning so things like that and the Kriel (non-)decision really needed to go in our favour.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 1:03 am
by _Os_
Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 12:18 am
Stills are great, unless you’re serious about illustrating the entire sequence of events.
He’s bound initially. He has to stay bound.
You will not be able to find a frame where his right hand isn't bound near Du Toit's right armpit/back, or even a frame where the hand isn't visible but his body is positioned in such a way the hand couldn't be there.
_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:55 pm
I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.
Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
You're lacking one crucial element for a maul there - a Scotland player bound in. Tuipulotu is bounced off in his attempted tackle (perfectly clear on the reverse angle) and before he can engage du Toit again, Kitshoff has stepped in front of the ball carrier and continues in that position across the line.
I'd be annoyed if a Scotland try was chalked off for something like that but we needed a decent bit of luck to have a chance of winning so things like that and the Kriel (non-)decision really needed to go in our favour.
Finally a good point. This one is a maybe for me. The tackler is bounced but does bind immediately and is never off his feet. His right arm goes limp, but his left arm goes up and grabs the lifting tape on Du Toit's right leg at the same time Kitshoff binds, Scottish player then loses that bind and immediately rebinds but when that happens is obscured. Where this becomes a maybe for me, is it's impossible to tell the order with the quality of footage I have (the next frame is the one with the red arrow I've posted already, and Faf's elbow is obscuring Du Toit's leg in that one). The tackler and Kitshoff are both bound to Du Toit within a split second.
What's for sure is all the stuff about Kitshoff not being bound is a load of kak. Ref was right there, he obviously decided it was a maul and was looking at Kitshoff's bind the entire time.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:21 am
by Sards
This is where I start losing interest
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:29 am
by Guy Smiley
I found a highlights clip on Youtube and yeah, he stays bound... albeit by the slimmest of margins. Easy to miss that in real time which is what I was going by.
Those last few stills though, they certainly don't confirm the Scottish player remains bound.
So, the Bokke cheated. Clearly.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:33 am
by _Os_
In an effort to end this.
It could be reffed that the bind is broken because the whole arm isn't in contact, but that's not often given (there's plenty of times at the front of mauls when players end up only gripping a jersey, much like Kitshoff ends up doing). Usually it's only strictly policed on the tail gunner. But the ref could say the bind is broken because it's not full arm contact, I would be a bit annoyed by that, but it could be given.
Thinking about it more it's likely there was no Scottish player bound and moon is correct, it happens in a second, but the Scottish player can't bind to the leg so any grab on lifting tape doesn't matter when he rebinds legally (although this is obscured) Kitshoff is likely ahead of the ball carrier. If a TMO called that, I would be less likely to be annoyed.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:41 am
by Chilli
Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:29 am
I found a highlights clip on Youtube and yeah, he stays bound... albeit by the slimmest of margins. Easy to miss that in real time which is what I was going by.
Those last few stills though, they certainly don't confirm the Scottish player remains bound.
So, the Bokke cheated. Clearly.
New Zealanders obsession with the Boks is a bit unhealthy.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:02 am
by Guy Smiley
_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:33 am
In an effort to end this.
It could be reffed that the bind is broken because the whole arm isn't in contact, but that's not often given (there's plenty of times at the front of mauls when players end up only gripping a jersey, much like Kitshoff ends up doing). Usually it's only strictly policed on the tail gunner. But the ref could say the bind is broken because it's not full arm contact, I would be a bit annoyed by that, but it could be given.
Thinking about it more it's likely there was no Scottish player bound and moon is correct, it happens in a second, but the Scottish player can't bind to the leg so any grab on lifting tape doesn't matter when he rebinds legally (although this is obscured) Kitshoff is likely ahead of the ball carrier. If a TMO called that, I would be less likely to be annoyed.
I was thinking the same... technically Kitshoff is bound as he maintains contact, but it's a sketchy call and could easily be penalised. 50/50 call on that and the grey area on this play is around his moving to the front.
Didn't influence the result though, it's just another of those myriad situations that excite debate.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:45 am
by assfly
I think the real question is whether Kitshoff's additional hydration illegally helped him.
Re: RWCR1 Scotland vs Springboks
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:54 am
by Slick
_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:55 pm
I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.
Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:33 am
In an effort to end this.
It could be reffed that the bind is broken because the whole arm isn't in contact, but that's not often given (there's plenty of times at the front of mauls when players end up only gripping a jersey, much like Kitshoff ends up doing). Usually it's only strictly policed on the tail gunner. But the ref could say the bind is broken because it's not full arm contact, I would be a bit annoyed by that, but it could be given.
Thinking about it more it's likely there was no Scottish player bound and moon is correct, it happens in a second, but the Scottish player can't bind to the leg so any grab on lifting tape doesn't matter when he rebinds legally (although this is obscured) Kitshoff is likely ahead of the ball carrier. If a TMO called that, I would be less likely to be annoyed.
I was thinking the same... technically Kitshoff is bound as he maintains contact, but it's a sketchy call and could easily be penalised. 50/50 call on that and the grey area on this play is around his moving to the front.
Didn't influence the result though, it's just another of those myriad situations that excite debate.
It all influences the result. No use pretending it doesn't.
Quite a lot depends on something looking right to the ref, shit but that's the truth of it. Forward passes are the obvious example, it's all about the passer's hands going backwards, until that doesn't matter because the ball travelled forward in a way which looks bad.
_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:55 pm
I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.
Law definition
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:55 pm
I feel some of you could benefit from a basic child level refresher on the laws. The sort of thing you learn in SA by about age 7 or 8.